[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74848-74857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21151]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 54

[Docket Nos. PRM-54-02 and PRM-54-03]


Andrew J. Spano and Joseph C. Scarpelli; Denials of Petition for 
Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petitions for rulemaking; denial.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying two nearly 
identical petitions for rulemaking submitted by Andrew J. Spano, County 
Executive, Westchester County, New York (PRM-54-02), and Mayor Joseph 
Scarpelli of Brick Township, New Jersey (PRM-54-03). The petitioners 
requested that the NRC amend its regulations to provide that the agency 
renew a license only if the plant operator demonstrates that the plant 
meets all criteria and requirements that would apply if it were 
proposing the plant de novo for initial construction. The petitioners 
assert that amendments are necessary because they believe the process 
and criteria established in the Commission's license renewal 
regulations are seriously flawed and should consider critical plant-
specific factors as demographics, siting, emergency evacuation, and 
site security. The NRC is denying the petitions because the petitioners 
raise issues that the Commission has already considered at length in 
developing the license renewal rule. These issues are managed by the 
on-going regulatory process or under other regulations; or are issues 
beyond the Commission's regulatory authority. The petitioners did not 
present new information that would contradict positions taken by the 
Commission when the license renewal rule was established or demonstrate 
that sufficient reason exists to modify the current regulations.

ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to these petitions, 
including the petitions, public comments received, and the NRC's 
letters of denial to the petitioners, may be viewed electronically on 
public computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1 F21, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected 
documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded 
electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the PDR reference staff at (800) 387-4209, (301) 415-
4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Banic, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone (301) 415-2771, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The NRC received two separate, but nearly identical, petitions for 
rulemaking in 2005 requesting that part 54, Requirements for renewal of 
operating licenses for nuclear power plants be amended. Mr. Andrew J. 
Spano, the County Executive of Westchester County, New York, filed the 
first petition on May 10, 2005, which was assigned Docket No. PRM-54-
02. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the petition and request 
for public comment in the Federal Register on June 15, 2005 (70 FR 
34700). Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli of Brick Township, New Jersey, filed 
the second petition on July 20, 2005, which was assigned Docket Number 
PRM-54-03.\1\ The NRC published a notice of receipt of the petition and 
request for public comment in the Federal Register on September 14, 
2005 (70 FR 54310). Because of the similarities to PRM-54-02, Mayor

[[Page 74849]]

Scarpelli also requested that his petition be joined with Mr. Spano's. 
The NRC agrees that the issues raised in these petitions and some of 
the public comments are nearly identical, and thus it is appropriate to 
evaluate the petitions together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Attorney Michelle R. Donato actually filed PRM-54-03 on 
behalf of Mayor Scarpelli, the New Jersey Environmental Federation 
(NJEF), and the New Jersey Sierra Club (NJSC). Although Ms. Donato's 
letter indicates that she is presenting three ``formal'' petitions 
to the NRC, the submissions from NJEF and NJSC state that they are 
submitted ``in support of'' or joining Mayor Scarpelli's petition. 
They do not appear to request petitioner status. Thus, any reference 
in this document to the PRM-54-03 petitioner is limited to Mayor 
Scarpelli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRM-54-02 (Mr. Andrew J. Spano)

    Westchester County is a political subdivision and municipality of 
the State of New York, and is located immediately north of New York 
City. It is 450 square miles in size. It has a southern border with New 
York City (Bronx County) and a northern border with Putnam County. It 
is flanked on the west side by the Hudson River and on the east side by 
Long Island Sound and Fairfield County, Connecticut. The total 
population of Westchester County, as measured in the 2000 Census, is 
923,459. The 2000 population is over 100,000 more than it was as 
measured in the 1960 Census.
    Westchester County is the host county for the Indian Point Energy 
Facility (Indian Point or IP), located in the Village of Buchanan, Town 
of Cortlandt. There are two nuclear power units at Indian Point: IP2 
and IP3. These are currently operated by single purpose entities 
controlled by the Entergy Corporation (Entergy). IP2 & IP3's operating 
licenses are scheduled to expire in 2013 and 2015, respectively, and 
Mr. Spano believes that in accordance with industry trends, Entergy 
could apply for license extensions for up to an additional twenty 
years, provided certain operating, environmental, and safety conditions 
are met.
    Mr. Spano stated that because of the presence of Indian Point, 
Westchester County has long had an interest and concern with the 
environmental, emergency, and public safety issues with respect to 
Indian Point. Mr. Spano further stated that after living with nuclear 
power plants for the past three decades, several events have changed 
the local community's perspective on the continued presence of the 
Indian Point facility: Three Mile Island-2, the Browns Ferry fire, 
utility bankruptcies, the Chernobyl accident, delays at Yucca Mountain, 
Davis-Besse reactor head problems, and the events of September 11, 
2001. He believes that as a result of these events, orders for the 
construction of reactor facilities have ceased and the public has 
become justifiably concerned about nuclear power plant safety. Mr. 
Spano stated that these concerns are particularly sensitive at Indian 
Point, because of its proximity to major population centers, periodic 
leaks of radioactive material, difficult (if not impossible) evacuation 
issues, and its proximity to the events which occurred at the World 
Trade Center.

PRM-54-03 (Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli)

    Brick Township, New Jersey is situated in the northern part of 
Ocean County, directly on the border of Monmouth County, and is located 
approximately 18 miles north of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 
(Oyster Creek or OCNGS). Mayor Scarpelli stated that Ocean County is 
located on the Jersey Shore, approximately 50 miles south of New York 
City and 50 miles east of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ocean County 
encompasses nearly 640 square miles. Mayor Scarpelli stated that Ocean 
County's location on the Atlantic Ocean makes it one of the premier 
tourist destinations in the United States.
    Oyster Creek, which is located in Lacey Township, became 
operational in 1969. In 1970, one year after Oyster Creek began 
producing electricity, Ocean County, New Jersey had 208,470 residents. 
Mayor Scarpelli also stated that according to the 2000 Census, Ocean 
County today has 510,916 residents, a growth of over 245 percent. Mayor 
Scarpelli also stated that Brick Township has experienced great growth 
over the past four decades, and that Brick Township is presently home 
to over 77,000 residents as compared to the 35,057 residents it claimed 
in 1970.
    Mayor Scarpelli stated that there have been numerous incidents that 
have occurred since Oyster Creek began operating that have raised 
concerns about the safety and security of nuclear power, particularly 
in densely populated areas, including the near catastrophe at Three 
Mile Island, the realized catastrophe at Chernobyl, the controversy 
about Yucca Mountain, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 
Mayor Scarpelli is particularly concerned that the evacuation of the 
communities surrounding Oyster Creek requires extensive review and 
consideration because of the growing concern of traffic congestion in 
Ocean County due to an aging infrastructure that has not kept up with 
the population growth.

The Petitions

    Both petitions present nearly identical issues and requests for 
rulemaking. Both petitioners believe that the license renewal process 
and criteria currently established in part 54 are ``seriously flawed.'' 
They argue that the process for license renewal appears to be based on 
the theory that if the plant was originally safe to be licensed at the 
site, it would also be satisfactory to renew the license, barring any 
significant issues involving passive structures, systems, and 
components. The petitioners further suggest that many key factors 
affecting nuclear plant licensing evolve over time, in that the 
population grows; local, State, and Federal regulations evolve; public 
awareness increases; technology improves; and plant economic values 
change. As a result, roads and infrastructure required for a successful 
evacuation may not improve along with population density, inspection 
methods may not be adopted or may be used inappropriately, and 
regulations may alter the plant design after commercial operation. 
According to the petitioners, the license renewal process under 10 CFR 
part 54 inappropriately excludes these factors. Mr. Spano also 
suggested that, before the concept of license renewal for nuclear power 
plants was established, it was generally assumed that plants would 
exist as operating facilities for the rest of their design life and 
then would enter a decommissioning phase. He stated that this 
assumption is supported by the fact that the collection of 
decommissioning funds from ratepayers initiated in the 1970s was based 
on a 40-year life of the facility.
    Both petitions set forth a list of ``key renewal issues,'' that are 
stated as questions the petitioners believe are necessary to confront 
during the license renewal process. Mr Spano lists five such ``key 
renewal issues:''

    (1) Could a new plant, designed and built to current standards, 
be licensed on the same site today? For example, given the 
population growth in Westchester County, it is uncertain if Indian 
Point would be licensed today. The population in the areas near 
Indian Point has outpaced the capacity of the road infrastructure to 
support it, making effective evacuation in an emergency unlikely.
    (2) Have the local societal and infrastructure factors that 
influenced the original plant licensing changed in a manner that 
would make the plant less apt to be licensed today? For example, 
three of four counties surrounding Indian Point have not submitted 
certified letters in support of the emergency evacuation plan. That 
would not be a consideration under the current licensing process. 
However, the inability of local governments to support the safety of 
the evacuation plan should, at the very least, give serious pause 
before the licenses of the plants are renewed.
    (3) Can the plant be modified to assure public health and safety 
in a post-9/11 era? For example, Indian Point cannot be made 
sufficiently safe according to James Lee Witt, former head of FEMA.
    (4) Have local/State regulations changed that would affect the 
plant's continued operation? For example, Indian Point must convert 
from once-through cooling to a closed-cycle design using cooling 
towers.

[[Page 74850]]

    (5) The original design basis of older nuclear power plants did 
not include extended onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). At 
Indian Point for example, the current SNF storage plan includes one 
or more Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations onsite, which 
increases the overall risk to the local community.

    Mayor Scarpelli identifies six similarly phrased ``key renewal 
issues:''

    (1) Could a new plant, designed and built to current standards, 
be licensed on the same site today? With the growth of Ocean County, 
which continues today, it is not certain that a nuclear plant would 
be permitted there today.
    (2) The design of Oyster Creek's reactor has been prohibited for 
nearly four decades. Does that reactor conform to today's standards? 
Would Oyster Creek receive a license today with that reactor?
    (3) In light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
would Oyster Creek's storage system, which is located close to Route 
9, be acceptable today?
    (4) Is the evacuation plan realistic in today's Ocean County? 
Would the tremendous growth of Ocean County over the past four 
decades, and the failure of Ocean County's infrastructure to keep 
pace with this growth, inhibit Oyster Creek's likelihood of 
receiving an operating license?
    (5) Would a license be permitted in light of the public 
opposition to the plant? To date, 21 municipalities in Ocean County, 
as well as Congressmen Smith, Saxton and Pallone, New Jersey 
Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley, and the 
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, have expressed either 
their concern for a thorough review and/or their opposition to the 
re-licensing.
    (6) In recent weeks, two studies released by the National 
Academy of Sciences have raised serious concerns about nuclear plant 
security and the health effects of low-level radiation upon people 
who reside near nuclear plants. Should these two scientific studies 
and other relevant scientific data regarding human health and anti-
terrorism be taken into account when considering Oyster Creek's 
license renewal application?

II. The Proposed Amendments

    The petitioners requested that the NRC amend its regulations to 
provide that it will issue a renewed license only if the plant operator 
demonstrates that the plant meets all criteria and requirements that 
would apply if it were proposing the plant de novo for an initial 
construction permit and operating license. The petitioners therefore 
requested that the NRC amend Sec.  54.29 to provide that the Commission 
will issue a renewed license only if it finds that, upon a de novo 
review, the plant would be entitled to an initial operating license in 
accordance with all criteria applicable to initial operating licenses, 
as set out in the Commission's regulations, including 10 CFR parts 2, 
19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 73, 100, and the appendices to 
these regulations. The petitioners also requested that the NRC make 
corresponding amendments to Sec. Sec.  54.4, 54.19, 54.21, and 54.23, 
and rescind Sec.  54.30. The petitioners stated that the criteria to be 
examined as part of a renewal application should include factors such 
as demographics, siting, emergency evacuation, and site security. The 
petitioners believe that in undertaking this analysis the NRC should 
focus on the critical plant-specific factors and conditions that have 
the greatest potential to affect public safety.

III. Public Comments Received on the Petitions

    The NRC received 21 comment letters on PRM-54-02. Fifteen letters 
support the granting of the petition and six support denying the 
petition. On PRM-54-03, the NRC received four letters. One letter 
supports granting the petition and three letters support denial.

Letters in Support of Granting the Petitions

    Eleven letters of support came from individuals and five came from 
public interest groups or individuals affiliated with public interest 
groups. The public interest groups are Riverkeeper, Nuclear Free 
Vermont, Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program (CMEP), which is 
part of Public Citizen, Public Citizen, and the Nuclear Information and 
Resource Service. Most of the letters are short statements of support 
and echo the petitioners concerns about emergency planning, evacuation, 
population density, and infrastructure. Other letters, mainly from 
organizations, comment more extensively and raise additional issues for 
consideration in renewing licenses. These issues include requiring an 
intergrated plant assessment of both moving and non-moving parts; 
basing the regulations on the best scientific and technical knowledge 
and data available; the use of seismic hazard analyses; public 
participation; designs of older plants; site-specific reviews, and 
waste management.
    Several commenters stated that they are concerned that the current 
relicensing regulations are not in the best interest of the public and 
its health and safety. They state that nuclear plants should meet the 
highest standards. They define these standards as those that are based 
on the most current experience and knowledge.
    One commenter focused in detail on the changes he thinks should be 
made to the NRC's license renewal regulations: requiring a moving parts 
assessment; addressing storage of spent nuclear fuel, the changes in 
population density and traffic patterns in the supplemental 
environmental impact study, and evaluating the feasibility of the 
current emergency evacuation for communities surrounding operating 
plants.
    Another commenter stated that license extension is not a right. The 
commenter believes that site-specific analysis is necessary and 
improved knowledge must be applied. The NRC should not ``lower the bar 
for currently operating plants, and they should be required to meet or 
exceed the very same standards a new operator would.''

Letters in Support of Denying the Petitions

    Of the nine letters supporting denial, seven letters came from 
industry organizations and two from individuals. The industry 
organizations are Entergy, Exelon, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 
(who sent 2 letters, 1 for each petition), Southern California Edison, 
Tennessee Valley Authority, and Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing, 
a group of six utilities. Those letters mainly argue that the proposed 
amendments are misguided and contrary to sound regulatory and public 
policy. Specifically, these commenters argue that the petitioners 
misconstrue the 1991 license renewal rule; the petitioners propose 
regulating factors that are beyond NRC's jurisdiction and not 
appropriate for rulemaking; the proposed rulemaking would duplicate the 
regulation of matters that are subject of ongoing regulatory oversight; 
and that the petitions lack bases upon which the Commission should 
conclude that its earlier determinations were incorrect or 
inappropriate.
    NEI, commenting on behalf of the nuclear industry, states that the 
petitions should be denied because the regulatory framework of the 
existing NRC license renewal process is appropriately focused and 
adequately protects public health and safety. NEI also states that the 
petitions fail to provide a valid basis for expanding license renewal 
reviews to duplicate the Commission's initial plant licensing review on 
certain topics.
    One letter from an individual opposes Mayor Scarpelli's proposal 
and specific issues. He states that his concerns with the Mayor's 
proposal are that they would result in the inevitable closing of 
nuclear power plants in New Jersey and nationwide, and in the resulting 
rise in energy costs to consumers. The commenter states that the Mayor 
has ample opportunity to voice his concerns through the current renewal 
process.

[[Page 74851]]

The commenter also states that because Oyster Creek appears to be the 
mayor's primary focus, amending NRC regulations would be ``a 
horrendously overinclusive remedy to a local problem.'' Finally, the 
commenter cites both local and statewide public support for the renewal 
of Oyster Creek's license.

IV. Discussion

    The NRC has reviewed the petitions and the public comments and 
appreciates the concerns raised. However, the NRC is denying both 
petitions under Sec.  2.803. The reasons for the denials are described 
in more detail in the discussion that follows. Briefly, the petitions 
raise issues that the Commission already considered at length in 
developing the license renewal rule (December 13, 1991; 56 FR 64943). 
These issues are managed by the on-going regulatory process or under 
other regulations; or are issues beyond the Commission's regulatory 
authority. The petitioners did not present any new information that 
would contradict positions taken by the Commission when the license 
renewal rule was established or demonstrate that sufficient reason 
exists to modify the current regulations.

Summary of the License Renewal Process

    Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the NRC 
issues licenses for commercial power reactors to operate for up to 40 
years and allows these licenses to be renewed for another 20 years upon 
application by the licensee. The 40-year license term was selected on 
the basis of economic and antitrust considerations, not technical 
limitations (56 FR 64960-64962; December 13, 1991).
    The Commission has explained its regulatory philosophy in license 
renewal at length in the final rule issued December 13, 1991 (56 FR 
64943), as well as revisions to the final rule issued May 8, 1995 (60 
FR 22461). That philosophy is that the issues material to the renewal 
of a nuclear power plant operating license are to be confined to those 
issues that the Commission determines are uniquely relevant to 
protecting the public health and safety and preserving common defense 
and security during the period of extended operation. This basic 
philosophy led the Commission to the formulation of two principles of 
license renewal as described in the 1995 document:
    1. The current regulatory process is adequate to ensure that the 
licensing bases of all currently operating plants provide and maintain 
an acceptable level of safety, except for possibly the detrimental 
effects of aging on certain structures, systems, and components and 
possibly a few other issues related to safety only during extended 
operation. Issues relevant to current plant operations are addressed by 
the regulatory process and will be carried forward into the extended 
period of operation. Examples of current issues include emergency 
planning and nuclear plant security. These issues are managed by 
current regulatory processes and will continue to be managed by them 
during the period of extended operation. Additional reviews for license 
renewal are not necessary.
    2. Each plant-specific licensing basis must be maintained during 
the renewal term in the same manner and to the same extent as during 
the original licensing term.
    The Commission has decided to limit the scope of the license 
renewal process because other issues would, by definition, be relevant 
to the safety and security of current plant operation. Given the 
Commission's responsibility to oversee the safety and security of 
operating reactors, issues that are relevant to both current plant 
operation and operation during the extended period must be addressed as 
they arise within the present license term rather than at the time of 
renewal. In some cases, safety or security might be endangered if 
resolution of a safety or security matter were postponed until the 
final renewal decision. Thus, duplicating the Commission's 
responsibilities in both oversight of current plant operations as well 
as license renewal would not only be unnecessary, but would waste 
Commission resources.

NRC Evaluation of Issues Raised in the Petitions and Comments

    The Commission has analyzed and addressed the substance of these 
issues on numerous occasions in the past. Neither the petitions nor the 
comments raise new issues, nor provide any tangible reason why the 
careful formulation of the scope of license renewal should be addressed 
once again. Other procedural mechanisms are available to the public to 
raise concerns related to the current operations or the renewal of a 
license for nuclear power plants. An interested party could, for 
instance, file a request under Sec.  2.206, requesting that the NRC 
take action to institute a proceeding, under Sec.  2.202 to modify, 
suspend or revoke a license, or for any other action as may be proper. 
Furthermore, any interested person may report a safety or security 
concern, or allegation to the NRC at anytime. The Commission's 
regulations also provide for numerous opportunities for interested 
parties to become involved in licensing actions and rulemaking 
proceedings.
    The NRC has reviewed each of the petitioners' requests and provides 
the following analysis:
    1. The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to 
provide that a renewed license will be issued only if the plant 
operator demonstrates that the plant meets all criteria and 
requirements that would be applicable if the plant was being proposed 
de novo for initial construction. In particular, Sec.  54.29 should be 
amended to provide that a renewed license may be issued if the 
Commission finds that, upon a de novo review, the plant would be 
entitled to an initial operating license in accordance with all 
criteria applicable to initial operating licenses, as set out in the 
Commission's regulations, including 10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 
40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 73, 100 and the appendices to these regulations.
    NRC Review: The Commission explicitly considered and rejected the 
possibility that an application for license renewal would be treated as 
if it were an initial application for an operating license when it 
issued the license renewal rule on December 13, 1991; 56 FR 64943. In 
the statement of considerations (SOC) to that document, the Commission 
explained:

    It is not necessary for the Commission to review each renewal 
application against standards and criteria that apply to newer 
plants or future plants in order to ensure that operation during the 
period of extended operation is not inimical to the public health 
and safety. Since initial licensing, each operating plant has 
continually been inspected and reviewed as a result of new 
information gained from operating experience. Ongoing regulatory 
processes provide reasonable assurance that, as new issues and 
concerns arise, measures needed to ensure that operation is not 
inimical to the public health and safety and common defense and 
security are ``backfitted'' onto the plants. (December 13, 1991; 56 
FR 64945)

    The Commission revised the license renewal rule in 1995, in part to 
eliminate any ambiguity as to the scope of license renewal. The 
Commission emphasized that it ``continues to believe that aging 
management of certain important systems, structures, and components 
during this period of extended operation should be the focus of a 
renewal proceeding and that issues concerning operation during the 
currently authorized term of operation should be addressed as part of 
the current license rather than deferred until a renewal review.''


[[Page 74852]]


(May 8, 1995; 60 FR 22481) However, out of concern for the possibility 
that the rule ``could be erroneously interpreted as requiring a general 
demonstration of compliance with the [Continuing Licensing Basis] as a 
prerequisite for issuing a renewed license,'' the Commission amended 
Sec.  54.29 (Standards for issuance of a renewed license) to clarify 
the specific findings required for renewing a license, and by adding 
Sec.  54.30 (Matters not subject to a renewal review), which specified 
that the licensee's responsibilities for addressing safety matters 
under its current licensing basis is not within the scope of license 
renewal.
    Seeking to revisit this determination, the petitioners suggest that 
the Commission reverse its course, and set forth a new standard for 
issuance of a renewed license that would be essentially the same as 
what the Commission rejected in formulating the license renewal rule. 
Though the Commission appreciates the petitioners' concerns regarding 
the facilities in their communities, the petitioners offer no new 
information that would support inclusion of those issues in the license 
renewal process and that was not previously considered.
    2. The petitioners request that corresponding amendments be made to 
10 CFR 54.4, 54.19, 54.21, and 54.23, and that 10 CFR 54.30 be 
rescinded.
    NRC Review: The NRC rejects the request that the corresponding 
amendments be made because it disagrees with the petitioners' 
contention that the license renewal rule should be amended.
    3. The petitioners request that the criteria to be examined as part 
of a renewal application should include factors such as emergency 
planning, demographics, siting, site security, and spent fuel storage.
    NRC Review:
    Emergency Planning: The petitioners request that the Commission 
consider emergency planning as part of the license renewal process. 
They both expressed deep concerns that, in light of the change in 
demographics, local infrastructures and governments would be unable to 
support large-scale evacuations. Both petitioners suggested that, if 
either facility were proposed for initial licensing today, that the 
licenses would be rejected for these reasons. Thus, the petitioners 
conclude that it is unreasonable to relicense facilities that would 
clearly be ineligible for initial licensing.
    The Commission has already considered evacuation in formulating the 
license renewal rule and determined that emergency preparedness need 
not be reviewed again for license renewal (December 13, 1991; 56 FR 
64966). Current requirements, including periodic update requirements 
provide reasonable assurance that an adequate level of emergency 
preparedness exists at any operating reactor. The Commission explained 
that ``[t]hrough its standards and required exercises, the Commission 
ensures that existing plans are adequate throughout the life of any 
plant even in the face of changing demographics and other site-related 
factors. Thus, these drills, performance criteria, and independent 
evaluations provide a process to ensure continued adequacy of emergency 
preparedness in light of changes in site characteristics that may occur 
during the term of the existing operating license, such as 
transportation systems and demographics.'' This determination is also 
incorporated in the Commission's regulations at Sec.  50.47(a), 
describing emergency planning requirements, in which a new finding on 
emergency planning considerations is specifically not required for 
license renewal. The Commission reaffirmed its determination on 
emergency planning in its May 8, 1995 (60 FR 22468) amendment of the 
license renewal rule.
    The regulations in Sec. Sec.  50.47, 50.54(q), and 50.54(s) through 
(u), and appendix E to part 50, establish requirements and performance 
for emergency preparedness. These requirements apply to all nuclear 
power plant licensees and require the specified levels of protection 
from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license 
date. The requirements of Sec.  50.47 and appendix E to part 50 are 
independent of the renewal of the operating license, and continue to 
apply during the license renewal term. The NRC's regulatory oversight 
program (ROP) monitors the continued adequacy of a licensee's EP 
program. In addition, licensees must review the facility's EP program 
periodically, including working with State and local governments, and 
have biennial exercises with offsite authorities.
    In addition, the Commission recently reasserted its position on 
emergency preparedness in the relicensing of the Millstone Nuclear 
Power Station. In that case, the Commission stated, ``[T]he primary 
reason we excluded emergency-planning issues from license renewal 
proceedings was to limit the scope of those proceedings to `age-related 
degradation unique to license renewal.' Emergency planning is, by its 
very nature, neither germane to age-related degradation nor unique to 
the period covered by the Millstone license renewal application.'' 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 2 and 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 560-561 (2005). If the 
Commission were to consider emergency planning during the license 
renewal review, it is not evident that the petitioners' assertions as 
to the licensability of either site have any factual basis. The 
petitioners ask rhetorically whether the local societal and 
infrastructure factors that influenced the original plant licensing 
changed in a manner that would make the plant less apt to be licensed 
today. As examples of these factors, the petitioners cited changes in 
the demographics since the facilities were initially licensed, and 
deficiencies in the local infrastructure. Yet these broad, conclusory 
statements without a factual or technical basis are insufficient to 
support a petition for rulemaking under the Commission's regulations. A 
petition for rulemaking, as set forth at Sec.  2.802(c)(3), must 
contain ``relevant technical, scientific or other data involved which 
is reasonably available to the petitioner.'' Neither petitioner has 
presented this type of information.
    Setting the sufficiency of the petition aside, it is not evident 
that demographics and siting would necessarily preclude the issuance of 
an initial operating license at either site. The Commission has 
addressed these issues, however, in other rulemakings. The final rule 
on reactor site criteria for nuclear power plants, 10 CFR part 100 
(December 11, 1996; 61 FR 65157) addressed examining demographics and 
siting, both for future reactor facilities and license renewal. 
Regarding new facilities, the rule states:

    The Commission is not establishing specific numerical criteria 
for evaluation of population density in siting future reactor 
facilities because the acceptability of a specific site from the 
standpoint of population density must be considered in the overall 
context of safety and environmental considerations. The Commission's 
intent is to assure that a site that has significant safety, 
environmental or economic advantages is not rejected solely because 
it has a higher population density than other available sites. 
Population density is but one factor that must be balanced against 
the other advantages and disadvantages of a particular site in 
determining the site's acceptability. Thus, it must be recognized 
that sites with higher population density, so long as they are 
located away from very densely populated centers, can be approved by 
the Commission if they present advantages in terms of other 
considerations applicable to the evaluation of proposed sites. (61 
FR 65162)

    Regarding future population growth, the 1996 final rule explains:


[[Page 74853]]


    Population growth in the site vicinity will be periodically 
factored into the emergency plan for the site, but since higher 
population density sites are not unacceptable, per se, the 
Commission does not intend to consider license conditions or 
restrictions upon an operating reactor solely upon the basis that 
the population density around it may reach or exceed levels that 
were not expected at the time of site approval. Finally the 
Commission wishes to emphasize that population considerations as 
well as other siting requirements apply only for the initial siting 
for new plants and will not be used in evaluating applications for 
the renewal of existing nuclear power plant licenses. (61 FR 65163)

    Security: Like emergency planning issues, security matters are 
covered by current review and update requirements. The Commission has 
rules, regulations and orders that are in place concerning physical 
protection (security) programs, specifically, parts 26 and 73, orders, 
and an on-going regulatory process that addresses the petitioners' 
concerns.
    The Commission specifically addressed physical security 
considerations in the license renewal process in its 1991 final rule. 
There, it stated that:

    ``Licensees must establish and maintain a system for the 
physical protection of plants and materials, in accordance with 10 
CFR part 73, to protect the plant from acts of radiological sabotage 
and prevent the theft of special nuclear material.''
    ``Application for a renewed license will not affect the 
standards for physical protection required by the NRC. The level of 
protection will be maintained during the renewal term in the same 
manner as during the original license term, since these requirements 
remain in effect during the renewal term by the language of Sec.  
54.35. The requirements of 10 CFR part 73 will continue to be 
reviewed and changed to incorporate new information, as necessary. 
The NRC will continue to ensure compliance of all licensees, whether 
operating under an original license or a renewed one, through 
ongoing inspections and reviews. Therefore, the Commission concludes 
that a review of the adequacy of existing security plans is not 
necessary as part of the license renewal review process.'' (56 FR 
64967)

    The Commission has regulations governing security and neither 
petition provides new information to justify including physical 
security considerations into the license renewal process.
    The NRC has reviewed and updated security requirements and 
continues to do so. The Commission has recently restated its position 
on the relevance of security issues in license renewal and explained 
that ``security issues at nuclear power reactors, while vital, are 
simply not among the age-related questions at stake in a license 
renewal proceeding.'' Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 638 
(2004).
    After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. commercial 
nuclear facilities escalated to the highest level of security. Since 
then, the NRC has issued more than 35 Advisories, Orders, and 
Regulatory Issue Summaries to further strengthen security at U.S. power 
reactors. In April 2003, the NRC required by order that power reactors 
revise their physical security plans, guard training and qualification 
plans, and contingency plans. Furthermore, the Commission will soon 
issue a final rule revising the Design Basis Threat (DBT) regulations 
in 10 CFR 73.1 (See proposed rule, 70 FR 67380; November 7, 2005), and 
will soon publish a proposed rule for comment amending most of its 
security regulations for power reactors. (See Proposed Rulemaking--
Power Reactor Security Requirements, SECY-06-0126).
    The previously cited Commission decisions and agency activities 
support denial of this section of the petition because security issues 
are monitored through an on-going regulatory process.
    Storage of SNF. The petitioners also contend that the Commission 
should consider the impact of the long-term storage of SNF, either in 
pools or at independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) 
during license renewal.
    NRC Review: In addition to being excluded by definition from the 
scope of license renewal under part 54, the Commission has also 
specifically decided to preclude the storage of spent fuel from license 
renewal in Sec.  51.95(c)(2) of the Commission's regulations, which 
states that ``The supplemental EIS prepared at the license renewal 
stage need not discuss * * * any aspect of the storage of spent fuel 
for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in Sec.  
51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec.  51.23(b).'' Section 51.23 
contains the Commission's ``Waste Confidence Rule,'' in which the 
Commission had made a generic finding that ``spent fuel generated in 
any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental 
impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation 
(which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that 
reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite 
ISFSIs.'' The rule therefore does not require analysis of these impacts 
as part of the environmental report, environmental assessment, or 
environmental impact statement. The Commission's reasoning for this 
finding has been documented in great detail and periodically 
reconsidered since the rule was first issued in 1984. See final rule, 
Waste Confidence Decision, (49 FR 34658; August 31, 1984); ``Waste 
Confidence Decision Review,'' (September 18, 1990; 55 FR 38474); 
``Waste Confidence Decision Review; Status,'' (December 6, 1999; 64 FR 
68005); and ``State of Nevada; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking,'' 
(PRM-51-08) (August 17, 2005; 70 FR 48329).
    Additionally, the NRC notes that the licensing and regulatory 
oversight of ISFSIs are dealt with under part 72, and that the 
Commission has specifically determined on several occasions that these 
issues are therefore outside the scope of license renewal for power 
reactors. See Nuclear Management Company, LLC. (Palisades Nuclear 
Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 NRC 727, 733-734 (2006); and Duke Energy Corp. 
(Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 344 
n.4 (1999).
    4. Changes to State and Local Law Affecting Continued Operation: 
Both petitions requested that changes to State and local regulations 
should be considered during the license renewal process. Mr. Spano 
stated a concern that ``Indian Point must convert from once-through 
cooling to a closed-cycle design using cooling towers.''
    NRC Review: Licensees must comply with applicable local and State 
regulations. However, nuclear power plant safety is the exclusive 
province of the Federal Government and cannot be regulated by the 
States. Under the AEA, the NRC has exclusive authority over the health 
and safety regulations of nuclear power plants and AEA materials. A 
State law that directly or indirectly sets nuclear power plant safety 
standards would thus be facially invalid. However, a State law that 
regulates the generation, sale, or transmission of nuclear energy 
produced by a NRC-licensed nuclear power facility would not be pre-
empted by the AEA. Thus, to the extent that a nuclear power plant 
licensee was subject to a State law not pre-empted by the AEA, that 
licensee would have a continuing obligation to comply with that law. 
NRC consideration of the applicable State or local laws at the license 
renewal stage is therefore not necessary or appropriate during license 
renewal.
    Regarding the conversion to closed cycle design, the NRC believes 
that Mr. Spano is incorrect in two respects. First, the regulation to 
which he refers is a Federal, not a local or state regulation: 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation on impingement 
entrainment

[[Page 74854]]

(40 CFR Part 122; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--
Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake 
Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; 69 FR 41575; July 9, 2004). 
Second, the regulation has performance standards that can be met in 
various ways, one of which is closed-cycle cooling. Thus, it would be 
incorrect to suggest that EPA's regulations require conversion to a 
closed-cycle design.
    5. The petitioners contend that factors such as an increase in 
public awareness, technology improvements, and changes in plant 
economic values are inappropriately excluded from the part 54 license 
renewal process.
    NRC Review: Evolving factors such as public awareness, technology 
improvements, and plant economic values are beyond the purview of the 
Commission's regulatory authority.
    The NRC notes that the regulatory process considers new scientific 
and technical knowledge since plants were initially licensed and 
imposes new requirements on licensees as justified. The NRC engages in 
a large number of regulatory activities that, when considered together, 
constitute a regulatory process that provides ongoing assurance that 
the licensing basis of nuclear power plants provides an acceptable 
level of safety. This process includes research, inspections, audits, 
investigations, evaluations of operating experience, and regulatory 
actions to resolve identified issues. These activities include 
consideration of new scientific or technical information. The NRC's 
activities may result in changes to the licensing basis for nuclear 
power plants through issuance of new or revised regulations, and the 
issuance of orders or confirmatory action letters. Operating 
experience, research, or the results of new analyses are also issued by 
the NRC through documents such as bulletins, generic letters, 
regulatory information summaries, and information notices. In this way, 
the NRC's consideration of new information provides ongoing assurance 
that the licensing basis for the design and operation of all nuclear 
power plants provide an acceptable level of safety. This process 
continues for plants that receive a renewed license. In addition, the 
economic viability of nuclear power is not within the regulatory 
jurisdiction of the NRC. However, NRC regulations require adequate 
funds to ensure the decommissioning of commercial facilities (e.g., 
commercial power reactors and ISFSIs) and for the safe management of 
SNF. A consideration of costs and benefits of a proposed action and its 
alternatives are normally part of the NRC's review according to NEPA; 
however, these factors have been excluded from consideration in the 
NEPA review for license renewal (see 10 CFR 51.45(c), 51.53(c)(2), and 
51.95(c)(2)).
    6. PRM-54-03 states that the NRC should revise part 54 to require 
consideration of a ``worst-case scenario'' in connection with license 
renewal, to the same extent that these issues must be considered at the 
initial construction/licensing stage.
    NRC Review: All of the requirements regarding design basis 
accidents analyzed for the original operating license continue to apply 
for the period of extended operation. There is no relaxation of the 
requirements applicable for the first 40 years for a licensee applying 
for license renewal. Analyses that rely on the original licensing term 
(i.e., 40 years) that meet the criteria contained in Sec.  54.3(a) must 
be evaluated for license renewal and demonstrated acceptable in 
accordance with Sec.  54.21(c).
    In the environmental context, the NRC's current regulations address 
accidents for license renewal. Subpart A to appendix B of part 51, 
Table B-1, ``Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' under ``Postulated Accidents,'' states that the 
NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis 
accidents are of small significance for all plants. For severe accident 
impacts, Table B-1 states that NRC has determined that ``The 
probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto 
open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and 
economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.'' 
However, according to Sec.  51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) alternatives to mitigate 
severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not 
considered these alternatives.

Public Comments

Integrated Plant Assessment
    A commenter states that NRC must include an assessment of moving 
parts for relicensing. The commenter also states that all license 
renewal applicants should be required to submit an integrated plant 
assessment that includes both moving and non-moving parts before being 
relicensed.
    NRC Review: The Commission explicitly considered whether to include 
active structures and components within the scope of a license renewal 
review when it amended the license renewal rule in 1995. The Commission 
concluded that structures and components associated only with active 
functions can be generically excluded from a license renewal aging 
management review. Functional degradation resulting from the effects of 
aging on active functions is more readily determinable, and existing 
programs and requirements are expected to directly detect the effects 
of aging. Considerable experience has demonstrated the effectiveness of 
these programs, including the performance-based requirements of the 
maintenance rule contained in 10 CFR 50.65. For example, many licensee 
programs that ensure compliance with technical specifications are based 
on surveillance activities that monitor performance of structures and 
components that perform active functions. As a result of the continued 
applicability of existing programs and regulatory requirements, the 
Commission determined that active functions of structures and 
components will be reasonably assured during the period of extended 
operation.
    Performance and condition monitoring for structures and components 
typically involve functional verification, either directly or 
indirectly. Direct verification is practical for active functions such 
as pump flow, valve stroke time, or relay actuation where the parameter 
of concern (required function), including any design margins, can be 
directly measured or observed. For passive functions, the relationship 
between the measurable parameters and the required function is less 
directly verified. Passive functions, such as pressure boundary and 
structural integrity are generally verified indirectly, by confirmation 
of physical dimensions or component physical condition (e.g., piping 
structural integrity can be predicted based on measured wall thickness 
and condition of structural supports). It should be noted that although 
the parts of structures and components that only perform active 
functions do not require an aging management review, structures and 
components that perform both passive and active functions do require an 
aging management review for their intended passive functions only. For 
example, the casings of safety related pumps and valves perform a 
passive pressure boundary function and require aging management, but 
the internals of those pumps and valves, which have an active function, 
do not.
    Therefore, the effects of aging on active structures and components 
are being managed by existing programs and any aging effects will 
continue to be managed by these programs for the period of extended 
operation. The commenter did not provide any

[[Page 74855]]

information to justify revising the scope of the license renewal rule.
Use of Current Scientific and Technical Knowledge
    One commenter states that regulations must be based on best 
scientific and technical knowledge and data available, instead of 
allowing currently operating plants to be grandfathered into compliance 
based on scientific data from the 1970s that is proven to be outdated.
    NRC Review: The NRC believes that the regulations are based on the 
best scientific and technical knowledge and data available. The 
regulatory process does consider new scientific and technical knowledge 
and data available since plants were initially licensed, and imposes 
new requirements on licensees as justified. All of the Commission's 
regulations undergo a lengthy and detailed rulemaking process required 
by the Administrative Procedure Act. During that process, the staff 
conducts a detailed technical review based in part on its years of 
experience, and input from the scientific community, public comment on 
the rulemaking, and industry. For further details, see the previous 
discussion under comment 6, concerning technology improvements.
    This commenter also suggests that the license renewal process 
simply ``grandfathers'' older plants into compliance with the current 
regulations. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the NRC does not 
``grandfather'' plants as part of the license renewal. As explained 
previously, the review conducted within the scope of renewing an 
operating license does not relieve a licensee from compliance with its 
current licensing basis, which mandates compliance with the 
Commission's current regulations. If changes in technology or 
scientific knowledge occur resulting in new NRC requirements, each 
licensee must evaluate the new requirements and comply based on the 
design and licensing basis of their plant.
Seismic Hazard Analyses
    One commenter states that updated seismic hazards analyses are not 
required of licensees, despite the issuance of new regulations that 
acknowledge the change in scientific knowledge on the differing effects 
of earthquakes on plant structures. The commenter further states that 
new seismic regulations (December 11, 1996; 61 FR 65157) only apply to 
new nuclear power plants.
    NRC Review: The December 1996 regulation (part 100) provides basic 
siting criteria for decisions about future sites and future nuclear 
power plants. The SOCs of the 1996 final rule stated that to replace 
the existing regulation with an entirely new regulation would not be 
acceptable because the provisions of the existing regulations form part 
of the licensing bases for many of the operating nuclear power plants 
and others that are in various stages of obtaining operating licenses. 
Therefore, the Commission concluded that these provisions should remain 
in effect for currently operating facilities. To ensure the continued 
safety of currently operating nuclear power plants, the NRC required 
industry to re-examine their seismic designs as part of the Individual 
Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program. The results of 
the IPEEE studies are summarized in NUREG-1742, ``Perspectives Gained 
from the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) 
Program.'' Based on the evaluations of the IPEEE program, the NRC staff 
determined that seismic designs of operating nuclear power plants still 
provide an adequate level of protection. Since the IPEEE program, the 
NRC staff has continued to assess the most recent models for estimating 
seismic ground motion from earthquakes as well as recent models for 
earthquake sources in seismic regions such as New Madrid, MO, and 
Charleston, SC. To evaluate the impact of the most recent seismic 
studies, cited previously, on currently operating nuclear power plants, 
the NRC has initiated a generic issue resolution process (Generic Issue 
199, ``Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates 
in Central and Eastern United States,'' ML051600272).
Public Participation
    A commenter voiced the concern that the current treatment of 
license renewal ``unfairly excluded and denies the public and its 
experts from critical analysis of the risks and benefits of 20 
additional years of operational wear and tear on safety-related 
equipment and from critical analysis of the risks * * * as well as 
extending and enlarging the adverse environmental impacts from nuclear 
waste generation * * * and the vulnerability of onsite nuclear waste 
storage systems to domestic security threats.''
    NRC Review: The NRC rulemaking process appropriately includes the 
public. The public has many opportunities to comment, such as public 
meetings and hearings under part 54. For special cases concerning 
security and safeguards (such as rulemaking, orders, and generic 
communications), procedures are implemented to appropriately ensure the 
safeguarding of nuclear material and information. In these cases, only 
persons with a need to know and with the proper security clearance are 
authorized access to subject proceedings.
    The public also had ample opportunity to comment under the various 
part 54 rulemakings, which evaluated prolonged waste storage.
    Public participation is an important part of the license renewal 
process. Members of the public have several opportunities to question 
how aging will be managed during the period of extended operation. 
Information provided by the licensee is made available to the public in 
various ways. The license renewal application and subsequent 
correspondence regarding the application are available to the public 
from the NRC's PDR or from ADAMS, which can be accessed through the 
NRC's Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). Shortly after the NRC receives a 
renewal application, a public meeting is held near the nuclear power 
plant to give the public information about the license renewal process 
and provide opportunities for public involvement. Additional public 
meetings are held by the NRC during the review of the renewal 
application. As part of the environmental review of each license 
renewal application a separate public meeting is held near the nuclear 
power plant seeking renewal to identify environmental issues specific 
to the plant for the license renewal action. The result is an NRC 
recommendation on whether the environmental impacts are so great that 
they preclude license renewal. This recommendation is presented in a 
draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS which is published for 
comment and discussed at another public meeting. After consideration of 
comments on the draft, NRC prepares and publishes a final plant-
specific supplement to the GEIS. NRC evaluations, findings, and 
recommendations are published when completed. All public meetings are 
posted on NRC's Web site. Key meetings are announced in press releases 
and in the Federal Register.
    Concerns may be litigated in an adjudicatory hearing if any party 
that would be adversely affected requests a hearing as is indicated in 
the notice of opportunity for hearing for each individual license 
renewal application. The opportunity for hearing is also announced in a 
press release which is initially posted on the NRC's home page on the 
Web. In establishing the current hearing process under part 2, the

[[Page 74856]]

Commission adopted many changes and undertook additional activities 
intended to enhance public participation. For example, the final rule 
extends from 30 to 60 days the time between issuing a Federal Register 
notice for a reactor licensing proceeding and the time for submitting a 
request for hearing and a petition to intervene. The Commission adopted 
a mandatory disclosure provision in part 2 that provides for early and 
comprehensive disclosure of information by all parties, thus avoiding 
the substantial resources and delay that often is associated with 
discovery. The Commission also created a prominently displayed button 
on its Web site titled ``Hearing Opportunities,'' where the public can 
find notices of intent to file applications, notices of docketing of 
applications, and notices of opportunity to request a hearing and 
petition to intervene in major licensing and regulatory actions.
Designs of Older Plants
    One commenter on PRM-54-03 was concerned about the designs of older 
plants, asking whether GE Mark I and II could be approved today and 
given license extensions.
    NRC Response: The NRC emphasizes that it would be incorrect to 
conclude that any currently operating facility regulated by the NRC, 
including OCNGS, is less safe than a newly constructed plant. The NRC's 
continuous regulatory oversight process often requires licensees to 
correct design deficiencies that could impact continued safe operation. 
Since OCNGS began operation in December 1969, the licensee has replaced 
and overhauled many pieces of equipment. The licensee has also 
installed new, modern systems to replace or supplement original systems 
that are obsolete or no longer considered adequate. The NRC requires 
plant operators to continuously test and monitor the condition of 
safety equipment and to maintain equipment in top condition.
    If a licensee applies for license renewal, the NRC reviews both the 
relevant safety and environmental issues associated with the 
application. Specifically, the licensee must provide the NRC with an 
evaluation of the technical aspects of plant aging. The licensee must 
also describe the aging management programs and activities that will be 
relied on to manage aging. In addition, to support plant operation for 
an additional 20 years, the licensee must prepare an evaluation of the 
potential impact on the environment. The NRC reviews the application 
and makes a determination concerning the protection of public health 
and safety and the protection of the environment. The NRC documents its 
reviews in a safety evaluation report and supplemental environmental 
impact statement, and performs verification inspections at the 
licensee's facilities. If NRC approves a renewed license, the licensee 
must continue to comply with all existing regulations and commitments 
associated with the current operating license as well as those 
additional activities required as a result of license renewal. Licensee 
activities continue to be subject to NRC oversight in the period of 
extended operation.
Site-Specific Reviews
    One commenter states that site-specific environmental analysis is 
necessary.
    NRC Review: The NRC performs plant-specific reviews of the 
environmental impacts of license renewal in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirements of part 
51. Certain issues are evaluated generically for all plants, rather 
than separately in each plant's renewal application. The generic 
evaluation, NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), assesses the scope and 
impact of environmental effects that would be associated with license 
renewal at any nuclear power plant site such as endangered species, 
impacts of cooling water systems on fish and shellfish, and ground 
water quality. A plant-specific supplement to the generic environmental 
impact statement is required for each application for license renewal.
    The GEIS was developed to establish an effective licensing process. 
It contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the environmental 
consequences of renewing an operating license and operating a nuclear 
power facility for an additional 20 years. Those environmental issues 
that could be resolved generically were analyzed in detail and were 
resolved in the GEIS. Those issues that are unique because of a site-
specific attribute, a particular site setting or unique facility 
interface with the environment, or variability from site to site, are 
deferred and are resolved at the time that an applicant seeks license 
renewal. In the license renewal process, these issues are addressed by 
the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact 
statement (SEIS).
    The GEIS is used to avoid duplication and allow the staff to focus 
specifically on those issues that are important for a particular plant 
(i.e., issues that are not generic). This is an appropriate and 
effective use of the concept of tiering that was issued by the 
President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in its 1978 
regulations that implemented the requirements of NEPA. Tiering is the 
process of addressing a general program (such as a nuclear power plant 
license renewal) in a generic (or programmatic) environmental impact 
statement (EIS), and then analyzing a detailed element of the program 
(such as a site-specific action related to the general program) as a 
supplement to the generic EIS. The CEQ has stated that its intent in 
formalizing the tiering concept was to encourage agencies ``to 
eliminate repetitive discussions and to focus on the actual issues ripe 
for decisions at each level of environmental review.''
    In addition, the environmental review of each license renewal 
application affords several opportunities for public input as described 
previously.
Nuclear Waste Management
    One commenter asserted that the license renewal process disallows 
public adjudicatory involvement in the extension of nuclear waste 
generation at reactor sites seeking license renewal without a 
scientifically approved and demonstrated nuclear waste management 
program because of reliance on the Waste Confidence Decision of 1990. 
The commenter stated: ``[t]he license extension process needs to be 
broadened in its scope and not hide behind an increasing dubious 
Nuclear Waste Confidence Decision by providing for the public 
intervention process to independently analyze and challenge inadequate 
site-specific onsite ``spent'' fuel storage systems including storage 
ponds and dry cask storage systems.''
    Another commenter added his concerns about requiring the most up-
to-date science to spent fuel pools and dry cask storage and questions 
the updating of regulations regarding seismic criteria for ISFSIs.
    Another commenter cited an April 2005 report to Congress by the 
National Academy of Sciences entitled ``Safety and Security of 
Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage.'' The commenter stated that the 
NRC should amend the regulations on the basis of that report to require 
that security of spent fuel pools and dry cask storage be 
comprehensively assessed during the relicensing process.
    NRC Review: As explained in the denial of PRM-51-08 (August 17, 
2005; 70 FR 48329), the Commission stated in its 1999 Waste Confidence 
Decision Status Report that it would consider undertaking a 
comprehensive

[[Page 74857]]

reevaluation of the Waste Confidence findings if either of two criteria 
were met: (1) When the impending repository development and regulatory 
activities run their course; or (2) If significant and pertinent 
unexpected events occur, raising substantial doubt about the continuing 
validity of the Waste Confidence findings (December 6, 1991; 64 FR 
68007). Because activities involving the high-level waste repository 
have not run their course, a petitioner would have to demonstrate that 
``significant and pertinent unexpected events'' have occurred that have 
raised ``substantial doubt about the continuing validity of the Waste 
Confidence findings'' for the Commission to reevaluate its conclusions. 
Neither PRM-54-02 or PRM-54-03 has provided any demonstration 
warranting reopening of this decision. Finally, delays of the waste 
depository at Yucca Mountain are not relevant to these petitions 
because waste is governed by separate NRC regulations and outside the 
scope of part 54, and the Waste Confidence Decision determined that 
spent fuel can be safely stored onsite for 100 years. The petitioners 
have not shown that waste would be better regulated under part 54.
    For spent fuel issues, see previous discussion.
    With respect to the comment regarding the National Academy of 
Sciences Report, the NRC notes that this is a classified report on 
spent fuel transportation security that was delivered to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations in July 2004, and that an 
unclassified summary was published in March 2005. The NRC sent a report 
to Congress on March 14, 2005, describing the specific actions the NRC 
took to respond to the Academy's recommendations. The Academy's study 
is one of many instruments that supplements NRC's understanding of the 
safety of the interim storage of spent fuel.

Reasons for Denial

    The NRC is denying the petitions for rulemaking (PRM-54-02 and PRM-
54-03) because they raise issues that the Commission already considered 
at length in developing the license renewal rule (December 13, 1991; 56 
FR 64943), that are managed by the ongoing regulatory process or under 
other regulations, or that are beyond the Commission's regulatory 
authority.
    The petitioners did not present any new information that would 
contradict positions taken by the Commission when the regulation was 
established or demonstrate that sufficient reason exists to modify the 
current regulations.

     Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of December 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director of Operations.
 [FR Doc. E6-21151 Filed 12-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P